9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 232 - HC - Income TaxAdjustment of the refund for the assessment year 2024-2025 against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2011-2012 - alternative submission made by the Petitioner to pay an additional 5 percent of the demand - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that the alternative submission made by Mr Jain is required to be accepted. The alternative submission being that the Petitioner is ready to pay additional 5 percent of demand for assessment year 2011-2012 so that the total payment would be 20 percent of the demand and since same would be in accordance with the instructions of the CBDT dated 31 July 2017 the balance demand would be stayed. In our view this submission is fair and the same is required to be accepted.
The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the adjustment of the refund for the assessment year 2024-2025 against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2011-2012 was justified.2. Whether the delay in disposing of the CIT (Appeal) for the assessment year 2011-2012 was attributable to the Petitioner.3. Whether the alternative submission made by the Petitioner to pay an additional 5 percent of the demand for assessment year 2011-2012 should be accepted.Issue-wise detailed analysis:1. The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the adjustment of the refund for the assessment year 2024-2025 against the demand for the assessment year 2011-2012. The Petitioner argued that the delay in disposing of the CIT (Appeal) was not attributable to them, while the Respondent contended that the Petitioner had not applied for an extension of the stay order. The Court decided to accept the alternative submission made by the Petitioner to pay an additional 5 percent of the demand for assessment year 2011-2012, in accordance with CBDT instructions dated 31 July 2017.2. The Court interpreted the relevant legal framework, including the CBDT instructions, and considered the precedents related to adjustments of refunds against outstanding demands. The Court reasoned that the Petitioner's offer to pay an additional 5 percent of the demand was fair and in line with the CBDT instructions. The Court found that this submission should be accepted to ensure a balanced approach.3. Key evidence and findings included the fact that the Petitioner had complied with the initial payment of 15 percent of the demand and was willing to make further payments. The Court noted the delay in disposing of the CIT (Appeal) and the expiration of the stay order. The Court's application of the law to the facts led to the conclusion that the adjustment of the refund should be restricted to 5 percent of the demand for the assessment year 2011-2012.Significant holdings:The Court held that the adjustment of the refund for the assessment year 2024-2025 against the demand for the assessment year 2011-2012 should be limited to 5 percent of the demand. The Court also directed the CIT (Appeal) to dispose of the appeal for the assessment year 2011-2012 within 6 months. The Court emphasized that the revenue could take appropriate measures if circumstances changed, requiring the demand to be secured beyond 20 percent.In conclusion, the Court's decision favored the Petitioner by accepting their alternative submission and restricting the adjustment of the refund to 5 percent of the demand for the assessment year 2011-2012. The Court emphasized fairness and compliance with CBDT instructions in reaching its decision.
|
